2021 Apple Silicon 14-inch, 16-inch MacBook Pro release expected to boost market share

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple is expected to release new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with Apple Silicon chips in late 2021, putting increased pressure on Intel, plus driving growth in the laptop market share.

Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider
Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider


Taiwan-based research firm TrendForce says that although the Apple M1 chip was officially released in November 2020, its market share only reached 0.8% by the end of that year. The first M1 Macs included an 13-inch MacBook Pro, a MacBook Air, and a Mac mini.

The pair of MacBook Pro models equipped with a proprietary Apple CPU could the company's CPU market share up to 7%, TrendForce estimates. That, along with a rise in AMD's share, could put increasing pressure on Intel.

TF Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo previously predicted that new 14-inch MacBook Pro and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with an Apple chip could arrive by the second or third quarter of 2021.

Apple itself said that the transition to Apple Silicon, first announced in June 2020, would take about two years. Other Apple Silicon Mac models said to be in the works include new iMac, Mac Pro, and iMac Pro variants.

The M1 chip has been well-received since its launch in 2020, and has delivered performance that beats even top-line Intel chips. The M1 in the 13-inch MacBook Pro, for example, is nearly as fast as a 16-inch MacBook Pro model with an Intel CPU.

In late 2020, Intel was urged to make major changes or explore strategic options in the face of increasing chipmaker competition,

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,404member
    As we know, currently, no half decent game written for PC can run under VMs or emulation very well if at all.  I wonder if this might change with M1 and M1X etc and ARM Windows on a Mac.  Or, better yet, the big gaming companies might wake up to the paradigm shift that is underway and bring out ARM versions.  Steam-M anyone?
    edited January 6 Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 10
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 923member
    Sorry if this has been previously discussed, but do we know when the clock on that 2 year transition started? Was it the announcement at WWDC, or was it when the first M1’s were finally released?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 10
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,566member
    Duh! The day Apple announced Apple silicon for MAC and the first introduction of M1 with undeniable performance/feature/power consumption jump; everyone realized Apple targeting to expand MAC market share with continuous introduction of higher performance, better features, lower power consumption MACs and bring price of previous gen MACs down. MAC upgrade continues so MAC market expansion.
    In MAC user's mind, transition is already happened and next MAC buyer is buying M based MAC laptops or iMACs.When Apple talking about 2 years full transition means all hardware(MAC Pro) and software already migrated natively to "M"
    edited January 6
  • Reply 4 of 10
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,543member
    MacPro said:
    As we know, currently, no half decent game written for PC can run under VMs or emulation very well if at all.  I wonder if this might change with M1 and M1X etc and ARM Windows on a Mac.  Or, better yet, the big gaming companies might wake up to the paradigm shift that is underway and bring out ARM versions.  Steam-M anyone?
    Stop yammering about Windows on ASi Macs. The theory that Macs being able to run Windows has had a significant impact on Mac sales is nonsense. And we are still in the early infancy of the ASi transition and we have no clue as to what’s in the labs for development at Apple, or Microsoft, or others.
    Fidonet127watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 10
    cloudguycloudguy Posts: 323member
    Losing 7% of their business, the vast majority of which will be Core i3 and Core i5 used in MacBook Air and entry level Mac Mini and MacBook Pro devices, won't "put pressure on Intel." 

    Look, this article https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-many-pcs-are-still-running-windows-7-today/ states that 90-100 million fewer PCs were sold in 2019 than in 2012 because of the rise of Android and iOS. And Intel is still fine. Why is this? Because the 200-250 million PCs that still sell a year is a huge number. And Intel makes most of their money on workstation and server chips anyway ...  the Core i9 and Xeon chips. (Apple sells less than 1 million Mac Pro workstations a year, and about that many iMacs with the Core i9. The vast majority of their sales are Mac Mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air devices that use dual Core i3 and dual Core i5 CPUs.)

    Please stop it with the idea that losing Apple's business will cripple Intel. It won't. Intel was fine before Apple adopted them in 2004 in the first place and will continue to be thereafter. If anything would pose a threat to Intel, it would be Windows on ARM becoming viable AND not costing 2-3 times as much as Wintel machines do. And it would be (predominantly Linux) data center and cloud servers as well as workstations moving to ARM.

    As far as AMD goes, you are pretending as if the back-and-forth between Intel and AMD is something new, or that AMD is somehow a bigger threat to Intel - and especially to their workstation and server business - than they were before. And that AMD being this growing mortal threat to Intel just happens to coincide with Apple switching to ARM ... what a coincidence right?

    Apple moving to ARM is a great development for Apple users, especially those who also have iPads, iPhones and Apple TVs. But it will have little to no impact on anyone else. Apple fans have been predicting the imminent collapse of Windows, Android and everything else ever since the iPhone took off. Isn't going to happen.

    edited January 6
  • Reply 6 of 10
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,557member
    cloudguy said:
    Losing 7% of their business, the vast majority of which will be Core i3 and Core i5 used in MacBook Air and entry level Mac Mini and MacBook Pro devices, won't "put pressure on Intel." 

    Look, this article https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-many-pcs-are-still-running-windows-7-today/ states that 90-100 million fewer PCs were sold in 2019 than in 2012 because of the rise of Android and iOS. And Intel is still fine. Why is this? Because the 200-250 million PCs that still sell a year is a huge number. And Intel makes most of their money on workstation and server chips anyway ...  the Core i9 and Xeon chips. (Apple sells less than 1 million Mac Pro workstations a year, and about that many iMacs with the Core i9. The vast majority of their sales are Mac Mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air devices that use dual Core i3 and dual Core i5 CPUs.)

    Please stop it with the idea that losing Apple's business will cripple Intel. It won't. Intel was fine before Apple adopted them in 2004 in the first place and will continue to be thereafter. If anything would pose a threat to Intel, it would be Windows on ARM becoming viable AND not costing 2-3 times as much as Wintel machines do. And it would be (predominantly Linux) data center and cloud servers as well as workstations moving to ARM.

    As far as AMD goes, you are pretending as if the back-and-forth between Intel and AMD is something new, or that AMD is somehow a bigger threat to Intel - and especially to their workstation and server business - than they were before. And that AMD being this growing mortal threat to Intel just happens to coincide with Apple switching to ARM ... what a coincidence right?

    Apple moving to ARM is a great development for Apple users, especially those who also have iPads, iPhones and Apple TVs. But it will have little to no impact on anyone else. Apple fans have been predicting the imminent collapse of Windows, Android and everything else ever since the iPhone took off. Isn't going to happen.


    I don't think you understand the paradigm shift going on here. 7% is GIGANTIC is business terms and that 7% may grow into 8% and 10% and so on.

    The knockoff products from Samsung/Huawei/Lenovo etc. are becoming more and more fragmented as Apple becomes more unified. And yes The iPhone destroyed everything before it and all that remains are knockoffs, some of which are no longer in business. Soon you'll see people with a real iPhone connected to an Apple Watch connected to AirPods Max which can naturally continue onto an Apple Silicon Mac flawlessly. Maybe a game they're playing on their iPad they can continue on their Macbook. Things are only gonna get better as Apple controls the most advanced consumer chips in the world! Imagine what's coming next. Glasses? New inventions like the foldable product they've been working on for years? Car? etc. etc.

    Compare that to someone who has a knockoff iPhone from Samsung running Android, Bose headphones, knockoff Apple Watch from Fitbit and doing work on a MateBook Pro running Windows and finally a knockoff iPad from Amazon running Amazon's OS using Alexa. That's BEST CASE scenario.

    "Android and everything else ever since the iPhone took off. "

    What a stupid end to a sentence since Android took off as iPhone took off. That was the sole reason for it's existence was to be an Apple knockoff that collects data.
    docno42watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 10
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,573moderator
    MacPro said:
    As we know, currently, no half decent game written for PC can run under VMs or emulation very well if at all.  I wonder if this might change with M1 and M1X etc and ARM Windows on a Mac.  Or, better yet, the big gaming companies might wake up to the paradigm shift that is underway and bring out ARM versions.  Steam-M anyone?
    Some of the videos showing games running via Crossover/Parallels look pretty impressive and the MBP/iMac should be 2-3x faster:

    https://www.youtube.com/c/andytizer/videos



    Native is still better wherever possible. Given that Apple will be selling close to 20 million units per year and all will be between PS4 and PS4 Pro performance or better, it creates a decent sized market for game developers. AAA games are considered really successful with just a few million copies sold. 5 million units x $60 = $300m against a budget of $50m. The Mac audience is around 150 million, if a developer can get even 1 million Mac users to buy a game, it would be worth the port.

    The biggest hurdle with ports will be with the graphics API support, especially DirectX but iOS will be a big incentive for some. Previously it has been pretty hard to build and test games against iOS but now developers can build, run and test iOS games natively, which means a faster turnaround time. They'd still have to figure out how to monetize big budget games on iOS but as the Switch shows there's a market for older AAA game ports.
    edited January 6 docno42watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 10
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,350member
    Looking forward to a 16” MBP with a 2nd gen apple Si chip - that will be a perfect replacement for my 2016 MBP!
    docno42watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 10
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,615member
    MacPro said:
    As we know, currently, no half decent game written for PC can run under VMs or emulation very well if at all. \
    Oh really? 



    And that's at the start of this transition with unoptimized games on Apple's lowest end hardware. 

    Yup, Apple is still doomed  :D

    EDIT: Marvin beat me to posting his channel - but yeah, he has lots of videos that are pretty amazing for an 8GB MBA!
    edited January 7 Fidonet127watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 10
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,615member

    MplsP said:
    Looking forward to a 16” MBP with a 2nd gen apple Si chip - that will be a perfect replacement for my 2016 MBP!
    Going to be a great replacement for my windows gaming PC too, just from what I have seen with others testing.  If I wasn't so addicted to the steam workshop and mods/assets with Cities:Skylines I'd be all over a MBA now - but I know 16GB won't be nearly enough RAM for me.  So I impatiently wait for the larger MBP.
    edited January 7 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.